being as I am a short fat old man, I am assuming that any such conflict will involve a pre-emptive strike from me.

Globetrotter,

Snap! I'm also old, short and fat (well reasonably fat) but I'm going to assume that I'm sufficiently switched on to ensure that I'm never involved with physical violence outside of the Dojo. That is not a criticism of you in any way and hope that you didn't construe it as such. Please read on for my reply to Mark for additional background to my rationale.

Mark,

Thanks for your comments. Whilst I doubt we will ever agree on this subject, I feel you deserve an explanation of the reasons behind the stance which I take. We need to go back quite a few years, in fact back to the early 60's through to the middle to late 70's.

During that time I worked for record companies and music publishing houses as a 'record plugger',this was an up market term for 'sales rep'. As such I had to visit radio stations (not a lot about in those days, well not 'legit' ones) dance halls , (anyone remember those?) and the 'then' newly emerging discotheques/night clubs. It wasn't a bad job, reasonably well paid, company car, expense account and hotel accommodation. (Not 5 star, or even 4 come to that!!) However I was very happy with my situation as being a single chap and visiting all these exciting establishments opportunities frequently arose to avail myself of 'crumpet' amongst other things.

Part of the job was to check up on the accuracy of the information feedback from dance halls and discotheques of the 'dance floor reaction' to any particular record we were aiming to release. All the establishments I visited got advanced promo copies gratis anything up to six weeks prior to release. Therefore as you can see I have spent a hell of a lot of time in discotheques, dance halls and night clubs in a work related capacity.

From that which I witnessed night after night after night in these establishments up and down the country for many years I can with hand on heart state that the door stewards, security staff, greeters, bouncers whatever you want to call them caused more problems than they ever prevented or cured. It mattered not one jot if there was any justification for the fracas nor the reason for starting it. Any excuse would do, argument over a bird, spilt beer, a piece of clothing being burnt by a cigarette, someone turning and unexpectedly elbowing another in the ribs, you name it and the 'I'll use the term bouncers' would pounce and proceed to beat the crap out of the perceived perpetrator and anybody who got in their way. Any excuse would do, and all in the name of 'pre-empting' a bigger problem and on the pretext of self defense.

Now I would expect you to say that these were no more than bullies, and if you did you would be right, that is exactly what they were. However, if we accept that the word 'Martial' means 'Military' then 'Martial Artist' implies 'One skilled in the arts of the military'. This is where it gets more interesting. Most, but not all of those employed in this capacity were off duty service personnel about 80%, along with off duty police officers (mostly PC's) who had also been in the services accounted for 15%, the other 5% were civilians who just enjoyed a punch up, amature boxers and the like. All, yes I really do mean ALL the problems were started by so called professional 'Martial Artists' on the pretext of 'pre-empting' a problem. This is the reason I took up MA so that I would be able to DEFEND myself against these gormless idiots, but I vowed right from the start that I would NOT under any circumstances lower my behavioral standards to that which I had been party to witnessing.

That is why I stated in an earlier post, that I will ALWAYS witness for the prosecution against anyone who I see taking the first strike option, as I have personally 'tarred them all with the same brush'.

Oh Mark, in this post I have used the expression 'gormless idiots' as that is what I have concluded them to be, please don't be offended by my use of the term.

We have no obligation to wait for an aggressive person to strike us first because, in case you all haven't realised it, the first strike an aggressor makes can be the last. Comes down to the likelihood of the use of weapons these days.

If you think that pre-emptive strikes are beneath contempt against an aggressor who (these days) likely is carrying a weapon of some sort, you're putting yourself in a position to be gutted. I know many people (a few of them who are friends) who carry illegal weapons, such as concealed knives.

Remember, the law exists to protect the innocent. I honestly think your sweeping generalisations about pre-emptive strikes makes you a very biased juror and a poor representative of the martial arts. If you don't have the objectivity to distance yourself from your personal feelings regarding the issue and look at the facts surrounding the incidents on a case-by-case basis, you may charge an innocent man/woman guilty and leave a hooligan on the streets to attack someone again, maybe resulting in a murder which could have been easily avoided by good, objective judgement.

Pre-emptive strikes can be justifiable and honourable and can prevent the death of innocents. In these days of regular terrorism, a person who throws a pre-emptive strike could save many lives. Surely this would be an honourable thing? Sweeping generalisations help nothing.

Perhaps you are such an exemplary martial artist that you don't have to worry about being stuck with a shiv/pocket knife by surprise but I sure as heck know that many people are not (including myself). Times have changed in most of the world and it's not as safe a place as it used to be.

Quote:Well, I don't have a 15 year old daughter. My youngest daughter is 26.

You haven't answered the question, So she should wait to be struck or raped, before fighting back???

Quote: Photographic and video evidence rarely proves innocence,

It doesn't have to it has to prove guilt.

Imagine you view footage: one man is constantly moving into the personal space of another, his body language is aggressive and domineering. the other man is backing up with his hands raised in as passive posture. After a moment the second man suddenly strikes the aggressive one with the heel of his palm straight into his chin, knocking him off his feet. The striker quickly backs away moving off camera.

There are witnesses most of them say there was an argument and that guy knocked the other down. but one or two of them said they heard the man, who struck, say several times that he didn't want to fight.

You're a member of the jury, keeping in mind reasonable doubt, do you vote the man guilty of assault, or do you except his claim the he acted preemptively in self defence.

Actually I'l post this as a poll in another thread, just for curiosity.

Quote:Can anyone tell me how to put multiple quotes into a reply please?

I've been using cut & paste and the quote function in the instant UBB code box, but there probably is an easier way

My mind on this matter was made up years ago, the circumstances of which I posted above. Maybe you would like to re-read it and try to see where I'm coming from. I PERSONALLY made a decision about pre-emption based upon MY scruples and morals, and based on my moral code I consider those who are willing and enthusiastic and teach to strike pre-emptively to be beneath contempt, in particular those who teach it, as by so doing (especially to kids) they continue the myth that pre-emption is OK and is justified, when any 'decent' person can see the moral laxity and redundancy in this attitude. As I have said; I will always witness against the pre-emptive striker (IE for the prosecution) should the opportunity arise, and I would of course try a case according to the evidence as is demanded by law. Should the evidence suggest pre-emption then that person is going down if I'm on the jury.

I'm personally sick to death of the prevailing attitude that 'anything a Martial Artist does is OK' as they will always be in the right. Wrong, they are just as likely to be in breach of the law as is any other sector of society. Get it kids, 'there's nothing special about us' we don't have any more rights than anyone else.

As to the matter of your friends carrying concealed weapons, your duty to society is to report these persons to the authorities immediately if not sooner. If they use these weapons then you will be culpable in the committing of an offence. The carriage of weapons is not a new phenomenon, as far back as the 1950's the 'Teds' used to carry cutthroat razors, and stitch razor blades behind their lapels in case they were grabbed by them.

I don't expect to win any popularity contests on this, just to demonstrate a more MORAL stance than is usually brought to bear. Also, I am not an ambassador for martial arts and have never claimed or professed to be one, I just abhor violent and immoral behaviour and will not allow pre-emption to be taught in my Dojo. No I'm not the Sensie, but I am the landlord.

drgndrew,

I have already said that I do not have a daughter of 15 yrs of age, my youngest daughter is 26, so I have answered your question. If you keep on about her age she might end up aged 90 before the point is grasped!!!

As to your second point, I thought you would know the answer by now. I'd convict the bugger as he struck first, thereby initiating the violence. Not difficult to grasp now is it?

Is of course totally correct, from your perspective. Door staff now HAVE to be a very different breed, new qualifications, training and CRB check, to remove the “gormless idiots” and prevent more starting door work. Doesn’t work perfectly, but it has really changed the Thug element..

I really like your comment:-

“I would NOT under any circumstances lower my behavioural standards to that which I had been party to witnessing.”

Door supervision has now become a professional occupation, so door staff should behave in a professional manner at all times.

You said:- “I'm personally sick to death of the prevailing attitude that 'anything a Martial Artist does is OK'”

Wow!! That is spot on as well!!! So many think that the are some sort of comic book superhero………..

So if we don’t agree on the principle of pre-emptive strikes, we do seem to agree on much else

Quote:You're avoiding the question, which is a natural reaction when answering truthfully contradicts a previous stance, let me rephrase it:

Would your view still be the same if it was your 26 yr old daughter fighting of the "gentleman" who now expects something in return for the "insert favour" he just done for her?

So she should wait to be struck or raped, before fighting back???

I have no intention of changing my stance on this subject irrespective of the cute way in which you praise your question. OK, got it? Stop trying to play silly sods, you ain't good enough.

Obviously I would not be involved in jury service if my youngest daughter was in the dock charged with assault. Should she be found guilty, she deserves the proscribed legal punishment. If she did strike pre-emptively and get off, she then has me to deal with and she wouldn't want that outcome believe me.

My mind on this matter was made up years ago, the circumstances of which I posted above. Maybe you would like to re-read it and try to see where I'm coming from. I PERSONALLY made a decision about pre-emption based upon MY scruples and morals, and based on my moral code I consider those who are willing and enthusiastic and teach to strike pre-emptively to be beneath contempt, in particular those who teach it, as by so doing (especially to kids) they continue the myth that pre-emption is OK and is justified, when any 'decent' person can see the moral laxity and redundancy in this attitude. As I have said; I will always witness against the pre-emptive striker (IE for the prosecution) should the opportunity arise, and I would of course try a case according to the evidence as is demanded by law. Should the evidence suggest pre-emption then that person is going down if I'm on the jury.

Your choice if you want to make sweeping generalisations. I surmise that you can live with sending an innocent person to jail and leaving an aggressive combatant on the street. I know that I couldn't.

Quote:I'm personally sick to death of the prevailing attitude that 'anything a Martial Artist does is OK' as they will always be in the right. Wrong, they are just as likely to be in breach of the law as is any other sector of society. Get it kids, 'there's nothing special about us' we don't have any more rights than anyone else.

So a non martial artist could be justified in striking first too. Why even bring up the issue of whether a pre-emptive striker is a martial artist or not? It's a non-issue in the eyes of the law.

Quote:As to the matter of your friends carrying concealed weapons, your duty to society is to report these persons to the authorities immediately if not sooner.

The friends who I have who do carry weapons do not live in this country. Hence, I can not report them to the autorities here. But rest assured that if people do elsewhere, they do here. I don't see why I should have to justify this, I know about how things can get in places such as Glasgow and Liverpool.

Quote:If they use these weapons then you will be culpable in the committing of an offence. The carriage of weapons is not a new phenomenon, as far back as the 1950's the 'Teds' used to carry cutthroat razors, and stitch razor blades behind their lapels in case they were grabbed by them.

Exactly why we can be in great danger just by being approached by an aggressor. I stand by my belief that pre-emptive strikes are justified if all other self defensive measures have been exhausted. Even then, a pre-emptive strike may not be enough to protect your own life.

Quote:I don't expect to win any popularity contests on this, just to demonstrate a more MORAL stance than is usually brought to bear. Also, I am not an ambassador for martial arts and have never claimed or professed to be one, I just abhor violent and immoral behaviour and will not allow pre-emption to be taught in my Dojo. No I'm not the Sensie, but I am the landlord.

From an ethical perspective, I would argue that a pre-emptive strike used with the intention of defending oneself or other people who are almost assuredly going to be harmed by an aggressor is justified. From a utilitarian perspective, consider the greatest good for the greatest number. The incapacitation (likely temporary) of an aggressor can save the life of not just the person defending themselves but the people in the vicinity.

By your logic, we are not justified in pro-actively defending ourself but must wait until after we are injured to protect our person. I would contend that a person who has been struck violently (especially with a weapon) may already be dead. You can't defend yourself if you're dead, can you? The principle of reactive self defense approaches paradox, if you have been struck your ability to defend yourself goes right down the drain. We may as well consider self defense a pointless act.

Sir, I would like to hear your opinion of what should be done in the situation described in the following thread:

Quote:You're avoiding the question, which is a natural reaction when answering truthfully contradicts a previous stance, let me rephrase it:

Would your view still be the same if it was your 26 yr old daughter fighting of the "gentleman" who now expects something in return for the "insert favour" he just done for her?

So she should wait to be struck or raped, before fighting back???

I have no intention of changing my stance on this subject irrespective of the cute way in which you praise your question. OK, got it? Stop trying to play silly sods, you ain't good enough.

Obviously I would not be involved in jury service if my youngest daughter was in the dock charged with assault. Should she be found guilty, she deserves the proscribed legal punishment. If she did strike pre-emptively and get off, she then has me to deal with and she wouldn't want that outcome believe me.

MC.

In that case can you tell me where you teach so that I can make sure to tell anyone who isn't an alpha male martial arts expert not to train with you.

REALITY BASED SELF DEFENCE IS ABOUT SURVIVAL

I can not believe you have just said that a young lady cannot defend herself preemptively infact what your saying is that it would be wrong for her to defend herself and that she should put up with rape.

you have no idea do you, go back an live in your cocooned little world o pretend and make-believe. this is a SELF_DEFENCE sub forum go play big boy in a martial arts forum. or at least get a clue

ooooh i spent times in a discotheque and started punching air 30 years ago, I know all about violence, in fact I'm so good I carry a knife to give to my attacker to make it fair, I'll even let him stab me first because I'm so righteous , and up my self that I wouldn't allow myself to be lowered to that level, even my daughter will regret the day she preempts a rapist.